At the Supreme Court last week, as lawyers argued the same-sex marriage case, one of the justices, Samuel Alito, asked the government’s attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, a striking question. What was even more striking was the answer he received:

Looking ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” Justice Samuel Alito asked a key question: “In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Translation: If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won’t surrender their beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt.

Further translation: if you don’t bow to the new “truth” of same-sex marriage, we will take away your tax-exempt status, thereby singling you out as enemies of our brave new world.

Then there was a speech delivered by Hillary Clinton at the Women in the World summit in which she stated categorically that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” to ensure “reproductive health care,” the polite phrase for abortion on demand.

In other words, no one should be allowed to believe that abortion is sinful, and that it takes the life of an innocent person. Those of us who hold to the view that abortion is against God’s righteousness must now adapt to the new way of seeing things.

If Hillary Clinton should make it to the White House, she will do all in her power to ensure this is carried out.

In both of these cases, we see Biblical morality openly challenged. Abortion and homosexuality are the cornerstone issues for the Left in this country. Dedicated Christians stand in the way of their achieving all their goals. Therefore, we must be sidelined, punished, ridiculed, and made to seem irrelevant to the glorious progressive pathway to the New Future that awaits.

The good news is that all this opposition to basic Biblical beliefs is rallying those who are committed to Biblical truth. We were never promised lack of opposition; we’ve always been promised that our way is the narrow one that few will find palatable. We are called to be faithful to the One who sacrificed everything for us, and not for us only, but for all who will respond to His message. May we remain His committed followers in the coming days—days that may determine the fate of this nation.

Are Indiana Republicans getting ready to cave on religious liberty? While I always like to wait and see, the signs are ominous. The law passed by Indiana is not only innocuous, it doesn’t even guarantee religious liberty—it only provides a basis for making an argument for it if one is being pressured to violate one’s conscience. Yet, because of all the artificial furor stirred up by homosexual activists, it appears that Governor Mike Pence and the legislature are prepared to water it down further. If that happens, it’s a victory for the New Totalitarians.

This is a sad time for religious liberty.

I’m going to make a prediction. No matter what happens in Indiana, the hysterical New Totalitarians won’t be mollified. This is a well-orchestrated strategy that goes beyond a demand for acceptance in society; it won’t stop until everyone who disagrees with them is punished. No one will be allowed to say homosexuality is wrong, sinful (the worst word imaginable), or even misguided.

First, the Supreme Court will come out in favor of same-sex marriage as constitutional. Never mind that the Constitution doesn’t give credence to any such idea; it’s the trendy new thing, and the New Totalitarians will win this one, wiping out all state laws that reject the progressive wisdom.

Second, their guns will be trained on institutions that seek to retain Biblical morality. They will begin by reopening their case against Hobby Lobby and other businesses run by Christians. They won’t stop until legislation is passed that declares they must bow to laws deceptively labeled as “anti-discriminatory.” At that point, Christian businessmen will have to decide where they stand with respect to their integrity and devotion to God.

Third, they will demand that pastors of churches perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or lose tax-exempt status. How many churches will refuse to do so and remain faithful to the One they profess to worship and obey?

Then the New Totalitarians will come at the educational institutions that proclaim Christian faith. They will be told they must change their beliefs and policies on homosexuality or lose their participation in the student loan program. How many of those institutions of higher learning will decide to go with the flow of the culture and deny their Lord? They will frame it as necessary to be able to continue their mission. At that point, I will question whether they have any mission left to fulfill.

Have you noticed that all the anger and venom is being directed against Christians, and not Muslims? Why might that be? Perhaps they know Christians won’t rise up and behead them. It’s safer to attack the Christians.

Is there any silver lining to this? I see one. If all this transpires as I am predicting, it will certainly separate the true believers from those who have only a superficial attachment to Christian doctrine and practice. We will be able to see more clearly who is on the Lord’s side and who is faking it. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Meanwhile, we need to prepare ourselves. If you still cling to the belief that America remains a Christian nation, it’s time to rethink that. We were founded on Christian beliefs, to be sure, but Christian faith is now a distinct minority point of view, and we have to understand that. We are now counter-cultural and must adjust our approach to our culture and our government accordingly. We can no longer assume we hold majority views.

All the news and controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton, on the one hand, and the Iran deal and the administration’s loathing of Israel, on the other, have pushed other important issues to the background. You know, all that “old” news that we’re supposed to forget about, and how it’s time to “move on?”

As an example, when’s the last time you heard much about the IRS scandal? Did the mainstream media, for instance, pick up on this story?

Then there’s the case that went to the Supreme Court about Obamacare. A reading of the law itself would automatically destroy it because the government has illegally provided subsidies expressly forbidden by that law. Yet the outcome is in doubt because one Supreme Court justice should have recused herself but refused to do so. Elena Kagan, when she served as solicitor general, helped ensure Obamacare’s passage. Rules require that justices recuse themselves if in their previous capacity they served as “counselor or advisor” concerning a current matter before the Court, or if there is anything about the proceeding by which the justice’s impartiality can reasonably be called into question.

Justice Kagan, though, has made sure her “yes” vote for Obamacare is counted:

And despite all the many scandals swirling around this presidency, we are told that the president has nothing to do with any of them. Why, he only learned about them the way we did:

All this from the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in American history”:

I guess that all rests on one’s definition of “transparency.” The only thing transparent about this administration is its dishonesty.

On this date, in 1973, the United States Supreme Court effectively ruled that abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Since then, approximately 57 million innocent lives have been taken.

Many Americans have learned to “live with” these results, apparently numbed morally by the outright horror of an act that has cost more lives than anything done by Hitler or Stalin.

We have been trained to think the human child is not a child. We have been schooled by our schools to focus instead on the “right” of a woman to destroy that life growing within her.

The one organization most culpable in this respect is Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, wrote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This is the same Margaret Sanger who spread her views to whomever was willing to listen. This infamous photograph below shows one of her rapt audiences. You see, one of her tenets was that blacks were inferior and needed to be weeded out of society.

So while Planned Parenthood adopts a name that gives it a cover of respectability, it’s not into any other type of adoption. The goal is always murder.

Those of us who respect human life—in particular, innocent human life—must continue to speak out on this issue. We must make sure it never goes away; we must not allow our nation to ignore the holocaust that is taking place.

Probably no better indication of President Obama’s unpopularity in his own party can be found than the repudiation of the passage of Obamacare by two of his own senators who voted for it.

First was New York senator Chuck Schumer, who publicly stated that passing Obamacare in they way they did, and making it such a priority, was a wrong move. He obviously feels little loyalty nowadays to the presumed head of his own party:

Close on his heels came retiring Iowa senator Tom Harkin, who, with nothing to lose anymore, echoed Schumer’s rejection of the Obama initiative:

The captain of this ship seems rather oblivious to the loss of some of his essential crewmen.

Of course, the president will continue to have the support of one very strong constituency:

But no matter how hard the media tries to repair this wreck of a vehicle, all it can do is perhaps rework its image; it’s really not going anywhere.

Then there’s the very real possibility (probability?) that the Supreme Court may cripple it decisively when it rules on the case coming before it this spring.

A couple days ago I wrote about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber’s arrogant comments about how he helped construct and pass Obamacare, noting that he and others “in the know” deliberately muddled the language of the law to help it pass. The most infamous part of his comments was his putdown of American voters as stupid.

Gruber then went on MSNBC (where he was assured of a friendly hearing) to say he was speaking “off the cuff,” so we shouldn’t take his words seriously. However, shortly after that, because someone was doing some actual investigative reporting, two more videos of Gruber saying nearly identical things surfaced.

If you haven’t heard much about any of this, it’s because you watch network news, which has ignored the story entirely. Yet this is major. It strips away all the pretense about Obamacare and reveals the underhanded way in which it was developed and promoted. In short, it’s all a pack of lies.

This revelation, of course, is hardly a revelation to those of us who have perceived its faulty foundation from the start, and have warned that it’s a huge Ponzi scheme dedicated to the ultimate goal of placing all healthcare in the hands of the government.

The Obama administration has said virtually nothing about this. I imagine the president, if pressed on his need to respond, might have this attitude:

The sad thing is that he’s probably correct, at least in the case of a certain segment of voters:

Gruber’s attempt to obfuscate in the language of the law helped win the day—along with the usual political shenanigans at the time that assured its passage. Anyone remember the Louisiana Purchase of Sen. Mary Landrieu?

Ironically, the law is heading back to the Supreme Court, with a case that focuses on some of its wording about how only the state exchanges can receive federal subsidies, not the exchanges set up by the federal government. Fewer than twenty states set up exchanges (some of which were complete fiascoes), so all those subsidies being handed out to the other states should be ruled illegal by the Court, if it follows the wording of the law itself.

Figuring out the precise wording, though, may be tricky, thanks to Prof. Gruber.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to review appeals from states with respect to the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. On the surface, this is an awful decision, yet is this possibly our best chance to reverse the tide?

The immediate, and dismal, result is that this non-decision clears the way for up to 30 states recognizing same-sex marriage as legitimate. Where can one find that elusive silver lining in the midst of such a departure from Biblical morality?

Let me offer what is probably a minority viewpoint from the conservative Christian community.

While I am unalterably opposed to homosexuality and am grieved by its increasing acceptance by our society, we may have, as one commentator noted, just dodged a bullet. Based on previous Supreme Court decisions, the odds were not in our favor if the Court had indeed ruled on these appeals. In all likelihood, it would have come down on the side of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, thereby mandating that all states accept it as legitimate.

What this non-decision does is allow some states to continue to stand against the tide that seeks to sweep over us. It should provide the impetus for states to set their own standard for marriage. In fact, I was concerned that so many states were placing all their bets on a Supreme Court decision. It was an all-or-nothing proposition, and I fear we would have come away with nothing.

Yes, there should be a national definition of marriage, but given the status of our morality, I would prefer it not be imposed at this time. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, and a Court decision in its favor would have forced it upon all the states.

Keep in mind it has been federal courts that have led the way in overturning states’ traditional view of marriage. Did we really want the Supreme Court, with four extreme liberals and a so-called conservative who has already made it clear he would vote with those liberals, to enshrine this sin as sacred?

As I’ve said many times, government is not our savior, and if the government is trampling on Biblical morality, it’s because the people have allowed it to happen. We are the ones who have elected those who have pushed for this. We are the ones who put a man in the White House who is radically pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, and who seeks to undermine religious liberty.

We let it happen. Now it’s up to use to reverse the direction we are headed as a country. It begins with a strong message of sin, repentance, and the new life offered through the Cross. It begins with individuals getting their lives straightened out as they get right with God.

Then those redeemed individuals need to inject that same message into all areas of society: education and government must be the focus if we are to change for the better.

Will this work? Theoretically, yes. With God all things are possible. But even though we have no guarantee, we must be faithful to the task. We’ll only know if it works if we remain faithful. Now is not the time to resign our role as salt and light.